I understand the desire to tell more "mature" stories, and I'm okay with that, but you've still got to make the characters at least somewhat sympathetic.
Or, as Jayne says: "Eating people alive? Where's that get fun?"
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
I understand the desire to tell more "mature" stories, and I'm okay with that, but you've still got to make the characters at least somewhat sympathetic.
Or, as Jayne says: "Eating people alive? Where's that get fun?"
They're not all unsympathetic, just that some of the people that fight to save lives are also truly fucked up people. It shifts the balance so that some of the cops and soldiers are righteous assholes. It's not an unappealing storytelling option to me, since it's not exercised all across the board.
FYI,
Reviews of TDKR are coming out. Studio lifted the embargo...
In our continuing efforts to OD on Batman, DH and I watched Dark Knight last night. It holds up better the third time around than it did the second, but I still thought we'd reached the end of the movie right after Maggie Gylenhal exploded when there was a whole nother HOUR left to go. The movie is going like gangbusters up to that point and then just stops dead in its tracks. It eventually picks up again, but I was left with the distinct feeling I'd just watched 2 movies instead of 1.
I think if you dropped the Hong Kong trip and the thing with the hospital, you would have an absolutely killer 2-hour film. The only thing of any importance you would lose is the scene between Dent and Joker, which, honestly, is basically the same speech the Joker's already given to Batman ten minutes earlier. Agent of chaos rules are stupid blah blah gogetBatmancakes.
(You might also have to lose the cell-phone sonar thing, in which case, hey, bonus!)
So on the one hand, I am incredibly stoked to see DKR tomorrow night (IMAX, whee!). On the other hand I can't get out of my head that this movie is going to be 20 minutes longer than TDK. Oof.
On the other hand I can't get out of my head that this movie is going to be 20 minutes longer than TDK. Oof.
I confess every time I see "TDKR" I first read it as "TL;DR".
I confess every time I see "TDKR" I first read it as "TL;DR".
Ahahahahahaha!! I'm telling DH to steal this for his review headline. Unless he loves it, I guess.
(HONEY I KNOW YOU ARE LURKING SO CONSIDER YOURSELF TOLD.)
Jess, ITA. I felt that TDK was 45 minutes too long. I hope that's not the case with TDKR.
I confess every time I see "TDKR" I first read it as "TL;DR".
That's awesome. I kind of hope it ends up in his review.
So far, Rotten Tomatoes like it. [link]
I'd be planning to go even if they were giving it a 9% fresh, but still, it's nice to see.
Two hours, 45 minutes? Does it have an intermission?
The Godfather was that long—it had an intermission.
Return of the King was 201 minutes (to TDKR's 164 listed in IMDB) and it didn't.